Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations the description carries full burden, and it discloses two meaningful traits: the recipient is an advertiser owned by the site's operators (a conflict-of-interest disclosure an agent should surface) and the flat price ($2,000 per unit installed). It does not say what happens after submission (confirmation, whether data is forwarded to a third party, idempotency), which keeps it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero padding, with the action and the price front-loaded before the constraint. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers purpose, the advertising relationship, pricing, and the consent precondition, which is the most important context for a lead-gen tool. But with no annotations, no output schema, and 6 undocumented parameters, the description leaves an agent without guidance on what the call returns or what the free-text params should contain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Its only parameter-relevant signal is that phone or email is expected in practice, despite both being optional in the schema; rooms, units, and city are left entirely unexplained (e.g. units bounds, rooms format).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb ("Send") plus resource ("flat-price mini split quote request") plus the named recipient/advertiser, which cleanly distinguishes it from the read-only lookup siblings (get_company, search_companies, price_benchmarks). An agent knows immediately this is a lead-submission action, not a data-retrieval one.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a hard precondition for use: "Only when the user explicitly asks to be contacted and provides their own phone or email." That is effectively a when-not rule as well. It stops short of naming any alternative tool, but the gating condition is explicit and unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.